Update no.501

Update from the Heartland

No.501

18.7.11 – 24.7.11

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

At 05:57 [R] CDT, Thursday, 21.July.2011, Space Shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center for the last time, completing a successful STS-135 mission and ending the incredible space shuttle program. This moment is historic and quite similar to 19.December.1972, when the Apollo manned missions to the Moon ended. Now, we move on to the next era of human exploration of space beyond our beautiful blue orb.

“One Big, Happy Polygamous Family”
by Jonathan Turley – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: July 20, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21turley.html?nl=opinion&emc=tya3
The opinion article notes a legal challenge to the Utah criminal code by the patriarch of a public polygamous family featured in TLC’s “Sister Wives.” Professor Turley drew specific attention to Antonin the Impaler’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003] [082, 188]. If you choose to read the article, I thought I would offer the specific quote: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision [Lawrence]; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.” Once again, I ask, why should the State be involved in any of the moral choices listed in Antonin’s dissent (or even others not listed)? We need to talk about these topics, overcome our learned sensitivity and discomfort, and find solutions . . . after all, there is at least one of those choices with the potential for injury. Let the intercourse begin.

Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report titled: “Getting Away with Torture – The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees.” The title aptly and solely offers a good clue of the report’s content. Nonetheless, I took the time to carefully read the 108-page screed. The tone of the report at the outset did not convey objectivity – only predisposed political bias. I suppose we could stop here, but I have more to say. If an individual reader does not care about a scholarly, balanced assessment of intelligence interrogation processes or detention of illegal battlefield combatants, then the HRW report offers a convincing treatise to feed his presumptions. If on the other hand, you seek to understand the challenges of intelligence interrogation and to place such activities in the proper context of a worldwide War on Islamic Fascism, then the HRW report is woefully and sorely lacking. Amply inundated, impressive looking citations of U.S. law and related documents help wrap such work in the cloak of authenticity and legitimacy. They got a number of key facts wrong, which detracts from their credibility to be objective regarding a sensitive topic like wartime detainees, e.g., footnote 9 is completely wrong, and on pg.49 – the Anti-Torture Act does not exist. The report makes no attempt to even acknowledge or recognize any proper intelligence value beyond simple detention of an unlawful battlefield combatant. If you are convinced Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tenet were criminals, then the HRW report will be a highly supportive and reinforcing essay; you will find abundant ammunition for your continued disdain of the prior administration. I do not see this issue in the same light; and thus, I reject the attempted indictment of President Bush and his lieutenants for “war crimes.” It is as if HRW seeks to humanize war, which in turn will only get good men killed.
Beyond the overall rejection of the HRW report, I will acknowledge disturbing conduct in the handling of some detainees in the War on Islamic Fascism as illuminated in the report. Were their detainee abuses even by my rather broad definitions? Yes, absolutely and without equivocation. Rather than indict the whole process and seriously hobble our intelligence apparatus, let us prosecute the offenders rather than those leaders charged with waging war successfully and defending this Grand Republic.
Now, if I have not already lost your attention and if you will permit me, I would like to offer some constructive criticism. To avoid this divisive debate in future wars, we need a dedicated, professional, strategic interrogation unit like the MIS-Y group of the P.O. Box 1142 unit [246] created on 15.May.1942, and operated secretly and effectively throughout World War II, only a few miles from Washington, DC. We need to search for, train and encourage professional interrogators like Major Sherwood Ford Moran, USMCR [491]. The various laws, conventions, guidelines and protocols, including 18 U.S.C. §2340A, do not recognize the status of the captive person, i.e., all captives are to be treated the same. I shall respectfully submit that battlefield captives are NOT the same, and should not be subject to common treatment. More realistic stratification might be: 1.) Proper POWs, 2.) Individuals subject to prosecution under civil code, 3.) Proper POWs subject to field combat interrogation, 4.) Captives subject to strategic intelligence interrogation, and 5.) Illegal battlefield combatants or other irregulars. Each category of captive should be exposed to different potential treatment and techniques commensurate to their strategic value to the United States and our allies. Failure to recognize the intelligence value of certain captives will be yet one more hobble on our ability to wage war successfully. I understand quite well that discussions of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) make normal citizens uncomfortable and that the majority of citizens would prefer EITs were never used on another human being. Likewise, I think those same citizens would not want to watch an eight-year-old girl explode or a sharpshooter decapitate an unlawful battlefield combatant with a well-aimed, two-kilometer shot. This is precisely why war needs to be fought by professional warriors and intelligence agents beyond the awareness of the public.
Lastly, I join HRW regarding the need for an independent investigation to understand the facts. However, as long as the War on Islamic Fascism continues, such an investigation must be highly classified, beyond public view, on the basis of legislative enhancement of controlling law. If evidence of criminal abuse is detected during such a secret investigation, then specific consideration by the CID or FBI should be initiated. The Supreme Court’s recent Davis “good faith” ruling [500] appears to apply; we do NOT need our intelligence operatives looking over their shoulder during wartime. If we want a public examination of intelligence interrogation processes and techniques, then we must wait until the War on Islamic Fascism is won and concluded. We must not forget that we remain in an active, serious war.

Imagine, if you will, being an aspiring, committed candidate seeking to serve We, the People, in high political office. You are not a wealthy person and do not possess sufficient, personal resources to finance your campaign. You only have two choices: 1.) solicit substantial contributions from your supporters, or 2.) submit to the political agenda of one of the two major political parties; either choices means you will are beholding to those who have the resources to support you. Nearly one-third of states have adopted various forms of public financing of election campaigns with one purpose – reduce or end political corruption. In 1991, a major political scandal known as AZSCAM rocked the Arizona legislature; ten members of the State House and Senate resigned or were removed. In 1997, the Arizona governor was forced to resign due to a felony conviction. In the election of 1998, the People of Arizona passed two important referenda: Proposition 200, also known as An Act Relating to a Campaign Finance Funding and Reporting System or the Citizens Clean Elections Act, the subject of a recent Supreme Court ruling, and Proposition 105 that limits the ability of legislature or governor to alter laws passed by the People. The Clean Elections Act created a scheme of public financing and rules in an effort to “level the playing field” for all qualified candidates to counter those candidates with massive campaign treasuries of corporate and private contributions. The purpose of the law was to reduce the corruption in government. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club challenged the constitutionality of the Clean Election Act on behalf of the organization’s Freedom Club PAC, claiming the law violated their First Amendment freedom of speech. Last month, the Supremes decided that case – Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 10–238]. The direct, succinct, summarized conclusion of this latest ruling . . . another Citizens United [424], we have. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the sharply divided 5-4 Court. The narrow majority was quite transparent and not worthy of more words. Associate Justice Elena Kagan offered an articulate, scholarly, passionate dissent. She noted, “So the majority has no evidence--zero, none--that the objective of the Act is anything other than the interest that the State asserts, the Act proclaims, and the history of public financing supports: fighting corruption.” Kagan concluded for the dissent, “No fundamental principle of our Constitution backs the Court's ruling [Freedom Club PAC]; to the contrary, it is the law struck down today that fostered both the vigorous competition of ideas and its ultimate object--a government responsive to the will of the people. Arizonans deserve better. Like citizens across this country, Arizonans deserve a government that represents and serves them all. And no less, Arizonans deserve the chance to reform their electoral system so as to attain that most American of goals.”
I ask, have we traded the oppression of the “divine right of kings” as royal birthright, for the tyranny of the royalty of money? Why is it so hard for the Supremes to recognize or acknowledge the vast corrupting influence of money? Oh wait . . . could it be they have a vested interest? Now, please allow me to emphatically state, I am NOT against the wealthy among us using their money to seek advantage, or the program, expenditures, or tax breaks that enhance their wealth and privilege. What I am adamantly against is the implication that money makes an individual citizen any more important than another, or that their wealth entitles them to pay less tax than me, or any of the rest of us. The established political parties do not want competition, which is precisely why they work so hard to make it virtually impossible for independents or even third party candidates to successfully compete. Even the vast wealth of Ross Perot was not enough. Lastly, again I ask, what is wrong with “leveling the playing field” with respect to campaign funding? The Supremes did not help me understand their objection.

Comments and contributions from Update no.500:
“Certainly a heart-breaking loss for the US Women. But on the flip side, Japan certainly needed something to lift their spirits after the earthquake and meltdown that devastated their country. Congrats to Japan on a hard-fought victory.
“Good for the Danes! Though they better be prepared. If the EU is anything like the Obama Administration in regards to Arizona, they'll do a full-court legal press on them and treat them like an enemy state. Hey, if the so-called leaders at the top don't want to do squat on illegal immigration, states have to take matters into their own hands . . . if federal officials and incompetent judges will let us.”
My response:
Thank you for your comments. Well said!
I have nothing to add.

Another contribution:
“Just a note regarding the financial problems of Greece and Italy- in particular. One huge problem those countries have is the inability to collect taxes. It is a game people play, and the government does not have a viable IRS-type entity to collect. Greece is the worst, with billions of taxes not paid- which is why they are in such trouble.”
My reply:
Italy seemed to be pretty effective at collecting my tax contributions when I worked there. I do not have any experience working in Greece. I would wholeheartedly agree that ineffective tax collection is injurious . . . I would go so far as to say far worse than no tax at all. It creates an environment of inequity and corruption.
If wealthy Americans paid the same fraction of their income as I pay of mine, I would be far more supportive of the Republican “no new taxes” mantra. They do not! In fact, not only do many not pay a comparable percentage of their income, they often feed bountifully at the Treasury teat with bogus farm subsidies, development exemptions, off-shore income, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. Big contributors expect and receive big breaks and benefits.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I heartily concur with you....the same Tea Party crowd that yells about taxes is actually funded in large part by the wealthy Americans who pay little or no taxes...and that is why.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Not the least of our social and political hypocrisies.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)